Poor Amanda Marcotte. She went to the movies hoping to see a safe Captain America movie that would steer clear of any material offensive to her militant feminist ideology. Sadly, that was not the case. Instead, she was subjected to the outrageous opinion espoused by the titular hero that the Avengers should not have to answer to the United Nations. Salon’s weekly assault on libertarianism was due anyway, so maybe it was just happenstance that a movie containing ideas which parallel those of libertarians was in theaters. ((Captain America’s a douchey libertarian now: Why did Marvel have to ruin Steve Rogers? – Salon, Amanda Marcotte, Salon, May 6, 2016))

Marcotte starts by feigning indignation that Marvel had to “ruin” the “comic tradition” of a character she knows only from the movies.

Most corporate blockbuster movies would cave into the temptation to make the character some kind of generic, apolitical “patriot,” abandoning the comic tradition that has painted him as a New Deal Democrat standing up consistently for liberal values. Instead, in both the first movie and in “Captain America: Winter Soldier,” we get Steve the liberal: Anti-racist, anti-sexist, valuing transparency in government and his belief that we the people should hold power instead of some unaccountable tyrants who believe might makes right.

Anyone who has read the Captain America comics would laugh at the idea that Steve Rogers is an FDR partisan. Instead, he stands on principle, and is quick to distance himself from allies who violate his code of honor. It’s interesting that Marcotte mentions the New Deal though, because in one scene, Tony Stark tries to convince Rogers to sign a contract agreeing to United Nations oversight. Stark presents Rogers with the pens used by FDR to sign the Lend-Lease Act, and Rogers responds by pointing out that the Lend-Lease Act pushed the U.S. closer to involvement in World War II. That’s typical of Cap in the comics and the movies. He will steadfastly adhere to his principles, even if it pits him against former allies.

Marcotte devotes the rest of her piece to apoplectic hysterics over the fact that Rogers wishes to reject oversight by the United Nations. Particularly galling to her must have been the scene where Rogers tells Lt. Rhodes (played by Don Cheadle) that “I know. But (the United Nations) is run by people with agendas, and agendas change.” Clearly, Rogers hasn’t heard that only private individuals act to satisfy their own self-interests, and that this trait is completely absent in government organizations.

Because while we all know and love them as the Avengers, hero squad, the brutal truth, which the movie does admit, is that is exactly what they are: A mercenary group who has resisted even the most basic oversight from democratic governments, oversight that would allow the people that the Avengers are supposed to be protecting some say in what this militaristic police force is allowed to do.

Oh dear, resisting oversight from democratic governments. I think it’s important to have a little context here. The movie opening scenes sees U.S. Secretary of State “Thunderbolt” Ross (played by William Hurt) reviewing the death and destruction from the previous Avenger movies, and making the case for the squad to accept UN oversight. If you don’t know who Ross is, he’s better known as the Red Hulk, who has a somewhat mixed history of engaging in unilateral action of his own. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline, Ross unleashed Abomination on New York, and used the military on a college campus in an attempt to subdue The Incredible Hulk.

But let’s set that aside for now. The Avengers are sorry for the collateral damage they’ve caused. They haven’t adopted clinical terminology to put a good PR face on the havoc they have caused while trying to save the world, like the US government has done. The Avengers’ regret for their missteps is in contrast to the actions of real democratic governments around the world, particularly the U.S., which, for example, kills one (possible) terrorist for every nine innocents it kills, ((Obama-led drone strikes kill innocents 90% of the time: report – Washington Times)) makes acceptance for the deaths of innocents standard policy, then just kind of shrugs its shoulders like “eh, whattya gonna do.” And let’s be clear: “the people” may be allowed “some say,” but it’s only say in terms of their relative ability to vote and/or protest. They do not control the governments they live under, and they certainly do not dictate policy to them. That’s what Marcotte really means by “some say,” and it’s false. They don’t have any “say” in what the Avengers are allowed to do, and they wouldn’t if the Avengers answer to the UN.

The demands being made by various governments and the United Nations in “Civil War” are more than reasonable. They want the Avengers to stop being a privately run paramilitary organization that answers to no one. They want them to sign a treaty agreeing to transparency and some government oversight. This is common sense and what we would expect the standard liberal position to be in a world where superheroes exist.

I don’t want to spend too much time wondering what the “standard liberal position” in such a world would be, mostly because the standard liberal position spends so much time in the realm of fantasy to begin with. This statement, however, perfectly encapsulates Marcotte’s, and the liberal position in general. To them, it doesn’t really matter how much harm a particular group might cause, what matters is that such groups are subservient to governments.

I just wish there were an example of a paramilitary group, like the one Marcotte can’t stand, actually helping people avoid destruction, and the corrupt United Nations forcing them to cease their activities and allowing murder and–oh what’s that, there is an example of that happening in the real world?

In March of 1995, a private company called Executive Outcomes was able to all but eliminate the violence in the decade-long civil war in Sierra Leone, forcing the murderous Revolutionary United Front to the negotiating table. It was the United Nations that put pressure on the government of Sierra Leone to stop using the services of Executive Outcomes, fearing the precedent of military action by non-governmental actors. The Sierra Leone government eventually caved to the pressure, allowing the RUF to resume its barbarity and eventually take the capital of Freetown. The objection then, which parallels Marcotte’s with Captain America, had nothing to do with which group was more dangerous, which was less likely to harm those it tried to help. No, the objection was that the group that saved lives in Sierra Leone was private, which of course sets the “dangerous precendent” of non-government forces having guns and acting to help people. Because the sanctity of government oversight and it’s sacred legitimacy in the use of force cannot be questioned, ever. ((The Vagabond King – Newstatesman)), ((Conflict, Inc.: Selling The Art of War – Center for Defense Information))

we have this distracting plot where Steve suddenly turns from a level-headed liberal to a Ayn Randian libertarian douchebag who throws tantrums because he has to do grown-up stuff like share power instead of make unilateral decisions for other people.

Some tantrum. Looks more like two adults attempting to wrestle with a difficult issue to me. Maybe Marcotte is the type to ask why someone is “freaking out” when they express an opinion at odds with her own. I know it must seem like a stretch to imagine such behavior coming from a feminist, but all I’m saying is it’s possible. Also, because this is Salon, the name of non-libertarian Ayn Rand must be invoked.

[embedyt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYt-31JkKvY[/embedyt]

Tony. You CHOSE to do that. If we sign this, we surrender our right to CHOOSE. What if this Panel sends us somewhere we don’t think we should go? What if there’s somewhere we need to go and they don’t let us? We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.

14 comments

Well said. Liberals can’t stand that there’s another group out there standing up for the little guy and who actually fights for the individual. What makes the film great is that it doesn’t take a definite stance, it’s just people dealing with real issues the best way they can. If you disagree with the Cap, that’s your opinion, but he’s sure as hell not one of your “liberals.” And he never has been.

I admit to not keeping up with current “pop culture” if that’s what Captain America is, but I had no idea all that could be drawn out of a “cartoon”. Kind of a lot like the Bible–there is a lot more in there than meets the eye.

I wish these clowns had read the actual civil war comics. The lengths and human rights violations that Tony and the government commit to ”win the war” shows their true colors in the end. They conscripted criminals into active service with a gun to their heads, they drugged detained and tortured prisoners, and outright lied to the public. They create an android that kills someone and conducted military operations on sovereign foreign soil.

Tony himself was a slip away from relapsing into alcoholism. He was a mess from his own cognitive dissonance. His arrogance ran himself into a corner to rot.

The movie really didn’t do it justice, though it was still entertaining.

Well, the comment refers to the movie, not the comic book. The two clearly are very different, and it’s okay to treat them so. Personally I think in the comic books there’s no doubt Captain America is morally right, while in the movie they purposefully changed the plot to make the issue more grey. I think that was actually an improvement, the debate around the movie version is far more interesting and thought provoking because in the comic book you really couldn’t with a straight face support Stark’s outright fascistic approach.

As for the movie, I understand where Cap’s coming from but I just don’t think his way is sustainable. Rule of law is there for a reason. The Avengers might be the nicest guys in the world, but what if a less altruistic group of super humans were to pop up? How would you treat them? Do you apply a case-by-case basis approach where you only hold accountable the ones who don’t conform to your personal view of what constitutes a “good guy”? In the Marvel Universe they just had the Punisher too (in the Daredevil show), killing criminals without trial left and right. Do they leave him be as well because after all he’s doing it for the greater good? It’s not a very sustainable way of doing things and if anything it’s going to bite the “little guy” in the ass hard somewhere down the line. For all the annoyance that rule of law can cause, the lack thereof always tends to resolve in powerful people having more leeway to do whatever they like.

// The Avengers might be the nicest guys in the world, but what if a less altruistic group of super humans were to pop up? //

Presumably, the super heroes would choose to fight to stop the super villains from engaging in activity that violates basic human rights.

How does “rule of law” solve this problem? You are aware that this is really a myth (http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm), right? It’s still just a group of people applying a “case-by-case basis approach” that depends on their personal view of the what constitutes a “good guy”….

This might seem trivial, but I just want to comment on the writing. It’s non-sensational and straight to the point, just as everything else I’ve read from Mr. Reece is. Makes it really easy to follow your points. Great piece here.

Altar & Throne

Help Support Altar & Throne

Do you like what you're seeing here? Help support us to keep the content comin'!

Bitcoin:

[coinwidget address="1HKQzRnveG4m4qtB52vwmP4s62MAepJTDD"]

Paypal:

Affiliate

Many of us here at Altar & Throne have had our horizons expanded through Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, and believe in and endorse this product. Join today to get the education you've never received before!